RFC
Since we have dot-dependency-injection which is attribute-based, shouldn't we revert this package to the last version it was using annotations, 4.x?
| Q |
A |
| Proposed Version(s) |
x.y.0 |
| BC Break? |
Yes |
Goal
Package name should reflect its purpose.
If it's called dot-annotated-services, it should use annotations, like it did before.
Background
Considerations
First, we must check live projects that use the latest version of dot-annotated-services (with attributes) and switch them to dot-dependency-injection.
Proposal(s)
Once we ensure that live projects have either switched to attributes using dot-dependency-injection or have not upgraded to version 5 of this package, we can delete 5.x and go back to version 4.x OR create 5.x from 4.x.
Also, documentation will need adjustments as it too is attribute-based.
Appendix
RFC
Since we have
dot-dependency-injectionwhich is attribute-based, shouldn't we revert this package to the last version it was using annotations,4.x?x.y.0Goal
Package name should reflect its purpose.
If it's called
dot-annotated-services, it should use annotations, like it did before.Background
Considerations
First, we must check live projects that use the latest version of
dot-annotated-services(with attributes) and switch them todot-dependency-injection.Proposal(s)
Once we ensure that live projects have either switched to attributes using
dot-dependency-injectionor have not upgraded to version 5 of this package, we can delete5.xand go back to version4.xOR create5.xfrom4.x.Also, documentation will need adjustments as it too is attribute-based.
Appendix